The Only Way to Defeat Terrorists

a reply to: dragonridr

Killing terrorists doesn't stop terrorism...but rather emboldens it...

A2D

Well, rather than arguing over principles let's hear what will be the solution.
We had a long list of what we shouldn't do.
What we should do that we didn't do so far and that will bring a real viable solution for both parties?

I'd suggest you use the term "jihad" instead of terrorism when talking about the Islamic State else it gets lumped into a bucket with terrorism from other groups (like school or movie theather shootings). They estimate there upwards of 15-25% of muslims that are considered radical of 1.8 billion which is a global population larger than the entire US population.

I highly doubt France will first strike a nuke, however I will not rule out Islamic State obtaining nuclear, biologic or chemical weapons which is a real threat because they WILL use them, and they will strike first (offense). They won't officially name this WWIII until we see nukes or something equally devasting. Consider for a moment that we have Pakistan/Turkey both muslim countries with nukes. How long before a jihadist from one of these countries wants to become martyrs and fire nukes? The worst possible leader is gonna be one of these with a suicidal death wish.

If the Islamic leaders don't stop teaching the jihad doctrine and anti-white racism in their believe system, it is gonna escalate no matter what. Also, there is the question of a jihadi in the ranks of the French military? Considering their population of muslims equals or exceeds that of French nationals, it would not take but one single jihadi within their own ranks to level Paris.

a reply to: WhiteHat

Commission a think-tank report led by a steering committee to research the value of undertaking a poll about the potential success of a questionnaire relating to possible actions by the UN.

Then we debate it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The crucial thing is to ensure that ones response to terrorism does not create more terrorism.

Unfortunately, it seems that if we act, we create a reaction. If we do nothing, we enable a certain confidence for them (terrorists) to proceed. Perhaps we should stop seeing terrorism as something that is anyone's fault but the terrorists'.

We may not erode civil liberties.

I agree 100% with the sentiment. I'm not so sure if I agree in terms of practicality. Unwillingness to inconvenience some people with a minor intrusion upon their privacy could very well be the difference maker. Rest assured, if the terrorists get what they want, you can kiss all of your civil liberties good-bye.

We may not bomb and bomb and bomb to solve a problem which has only been made worse by bombing.

Agreed. At the same time, if there is an opportunity to take out a weapons cache or base, shouldn't that opportunity be seized upon?

We may not prohibit worship of any religion.

I would add that we must not show favoritism to any one religion (or lack thereof).

We may not allow unofficial militias to spring up in hatred to lash out in ignorance against innocent people in retaliation for the crimes of terrorists.

No vigilante justice - agreed.

We may not allow our governments to guide us, but be the hand that steers them toward resolution.

Not so sure I agree with this. I'm not very trusting of government, but I'm even less so of "the people." The two should work together more than they do at present, though. For instance, a war resolution should also be submitted to the citizens.

All things which fall in violation of these basic rules are invalid, and will make the situation worse, not better or make saving the world moot.

Yet, we must be careful to not repeat the mistake of appeasement.

I would rather be dead than live in a fascism for any reason, rather suffer the consequences of too little security and too much liberty, than ever loose what little liberty remains to me

Know that if the terrorists are ever able to establish Islamic rule, a fascism that goes against everything you hold dear is exactly what you will get.

There is little we can do.

Between the civil liberties groups, and the line of crossing over into racism; and a religion where by just a few simple twists to words you can have a handful of people go and kill soft-targets "for the glory of their god".

How do you combat an idea that is born of faith, and once twisted, festers in the heart of a radical like a cork-screw to the point he gets his stuff together and commits heinous crimes?

There world is rife with terrorists waiting to act, for a seething idea in their brain.

In order to combat that, you would have to create something akin to what we saw in Minority Report (a movie). We would need a pre-crime unit to remove the terrorists before they act.

Until such a thing is created, we can only be reactive to such things as they occur.

Alternatively, people will get fed-up with it, and then the gloves will come off and a mess of civilians killing mass numbers of anyone who looks like the demographic of the terrorists.

You can only push the people so far before something breaks on one side or the other.

originally posted by: 711117
I believe the only way we can stop war and terrorism is the realization that we're all interconnected on a universal level. The further you move back the more you realize it's all 1 picture. Seperation is an illusion. I'm probably in the wrong corner of ats though lol, i'm just going to say that and quietly slip back to the philosophy section

You're right - but at the same time there is a separation (at least at one level). I'm sure I'll meet you there sometime.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: eletheia

Fantastic spin there.

Have you considered how little your safety is worth, when you have no freedom to enjoy breathing with? If you believe you can enjoy security without freedom, why not go and live in China, or North Korea?

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose ....

When you have no breath left ... freedom is of little or no value!

a reply to: eletheia

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose ....

Starred! Just love Janis Joplin.

a reply to: WhiteHat

The answer has been the same since the beginning. It's the one tactic that has never been employed, and the only tactic which ever would have worked.

A totally deniable, utterly invisible counter network of assassins, tasked with being inserted into enemy held territory, and quietly, and with ZERO collateral damage, taking out leaders and hardware in a manner which strikes terror into the enemy. No tanks, no bombs, no planes or drones. Silenced pistols and knives in the darkness ONLY. No big showy explosions, no big headlines, just the power of horror and fear of an untraceable foe in their midst.

That is the sort of war you make against such an enemy as the one which faces the world today. The days where carpet bombing your enemy into submission might be an option are over. It is an outmoded and ineffective strategy, and does not help the cause of the free world one bit. Pinning the flayed corpse of an enemy commander to his own compound wall with a rivet gun, after slitting the throats of all his guards, and his sleeping soldiers in the dead of night though... Different story entirely.

a reply to: eletheia

If I have no other freedom or liberty left, then the only freedom I need is the freedom to die.

Because if that is the only choice, then I see no alternative. There is no point in having security if one has not the freedom to enjoy it. I am saying that if our continuance on this world costs our freedom, then we might as well die, because otherwise this species will die a slow and rotten death, rather than one which might have meant something given half a chance.

No boots on my neck, no matter how they might be justified.

a reply to: scorpio84

Yes, it is the terrorists fault.

But ONLY the terrorists, not others who share elements of their religious beliefs, dress code, skin colour, the sound of their names, their nation of origin, or any other intersection of their individual Venn diagrams!

I have just posted a response which details a proper method for removing the actual terrorists, without causing unnecessary fatalities, and it is the only one which any nation has any business enacting, what so ever.

a reply to: Kandinsky

You want to turn the 'white' West into a gated community that keeps the Muslims out.

I said that separate would be better. I meant that Muslims and non-Muslims would be happier as there wouldn't be the conflict of cultural interest. It isn't something I would want forced on anyone - and I certainly never suggested a "gated community."

Yeah, you've allowed for the 'citizen' Muslims to remain, but your sub-text suggests that's not really on the table;

My subtext? I didn't omit any ulterior thoughts on this matter.

You're calling for an apartheid system when history has already shown us how such a system requires enforcement.

I'm not an expert or anything on Apartheid, but wasn't that when the South African whites ruled over and subjugated the black majority? I'm not calling for that to happen to anyone, Muslims included. I'm calling for closer monitoring - nothing more, nothing less.

There's an issue with how you present Muslims too. There's a middle class who work, run businesses, trade in stocks and shares etc. There's a medical class who occupy roles at every level throughout the world.

How have I presented Muslims? What I have said is that the current terrorists are Muslims. I realize that Muslims are active in all facets of society - however the cold hard truth is that doesn't really matter. Muslims from all walks of life are joining the ranks of fanaticism and to do nothing, assuming that because of wealth or success that they would never turn terrorist is foolish. Anyhow, I'm not speaking of forced relocation of citizens nor of conducting random raids.

They aren't extremists and yet you think it's fair to reduce their status and expel them.

First, expel the Muslim non-citizens? Bar refugees from flooding in? You bet. As for not being extremists...what makes you so sure? One of the problems is them becoming a majority. When this happens, terrorist acts will be just the beginning. A full infiltration and overthrow of culture would be done from the inside, using our own laws against us - our culture would basically get voted out. Fear-mongering? Let's just say that fear is something that keeps all animals alive to see another day.

You'll want to argue here that it's okay for them to stay; these 'good Muslims.' Who'd want to stay in a community where you are characterised as an existential threat and a potential terrorist?

Actually, considering Islam and the West (Judeo-Christian) are rather incompatible, I'd be immensely pleased if they'd all pack up and ship off to whichever Muslim nation suited them best. That isn't racist- it's simple truth.

What you want is forced deportation of millions

Can you read my mind? I didn't even get around yet to posting my thread about illegal immigration in the USA. Would it be okay if only thousands were forcibly deported?

Such actions wouldn't lead to more peace or less terrorism would they?

I'm not sure what the result would be except for less calls to prayer five times per day, less infringement on our culture, and a greatly reduced chance that one of them would be able to attack one of our cities. I respect Saudi Arabia far more than any Western country in one respect - they understand the importance of one's own culture. Do you think they allow Christians to go around preaching the "Good Word?" No, they take Bibles at the airport - and for good reason. They are preserving their culture. Of course, at the same time they are funding actions to overturn ours, but that's beside the point.

Your views tend to align with some historical figures who don't look so good in the history books.

Which ones? Humor me.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: eletheia

If I have no other freedom or liberty left, then the only freedom I need is the freedom to die.

There is a group who claim to be Muslim, and claim it is their right to kill

infidels (anyone who does not believe as they do) who will obligingly

do just that.

Which means the need to exercise forms of security (small price to pay?)

in an effort to prevent their attempts at genocide to the whole of

humanity.

Their aim is total domination, even toward the more moderate Muslim.

Where we in the west have a live and let live attitude ... Theirs is a die

if you wont believe attitude.

a reply to: Metallicus

Except we did just that when we drafted people to fight in WW2...

Our values should never be abandoned, but there are times when some of our freedoms may need to be suspended temporarily. It isn't something anyone wants, but the consequence of doing nothing to stubbornly protect our freedom is much worse.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
So what I'm getting from ATS is that the only way to deal with terrorism is by committing the worst crimes to humanity in the 20th century. Internment/ concentration camps and nuclear obliteration of countries. I'm not sure I can handle this madness much longer. Scary to see what a bit of fear, propaganda and a few YouTube videos can do to rational sane human beings. I can only assume few people on this site bothered with history class. too busy dishing out nuggies and wedgies on nerds. 😂 whether to laugh or cry?

What I'm getting from your post is that you are unable to read. I have not mentioned, nor have I seen mentioned anything about camps or nuking other countries.

originally posted by: scorpio84

3). Mass murder is being committed in the name of Islam - and Islam alone

Erm yeah......nooooo

Every Mass murder is NOT down to Islam alone.

a reply to: scorpio84

Thanks for the Fisking...

The themes of your posts creates the impression of an intelligent extremist hiding behind words.

You say 'deport Muslims' and slide past the logistics of how that's accomplished. You say 'close borders' and leave aside the implications of what a closed border looks like or how they are enforced. You argue for 'monitoring' and 'profiling' Muslims and neglect to define the processes these require.

Now, you're standing on the point that none of these actions and systems will demand 'forced relocation of citizens nor of conducting random raids.' How could they not be? How can your ideal be accomplished without security searches on properties?

To bring about your ideal, we'd be looking at something similar to wartime Germany, Cold War Berlin and 1990s Zimbabwe. You can sugar-coat it all with reasonable-sounding explanations, but underneath is the same old bitter pill of extremism.

a reply to: TrueBrit
I don't deny that there is some value in your idea.
But then...who decide who is the enemy? Think about CIA, NSA and other "totally deniable, utterly invisible counter network of...people with skills" created maybe with good intentions but in the end used by whoever is in power against whoever they think is "their" enemy.
To whom such a network will be accountable? Who will monitor them? I'm afraid that the potential of such a network to be corrupted for personal purposes is too great to risk it.
"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" or something like that.

a reply to: eletheia

The existence of such a group does not change the fundamental truth.

The threat is irrelevant. The scale of it is irrelevant. How imminent the threat might be is irrelevant. Unless it can be countered without the erosion of freedom and liberty, then the battle is already over.

If my nation must fall at all, if its people must be denuded of their rights and freedoms, then let it be the enemy who bring that to us. Let us never do it to ourselves out of weakness, fear, cowardice. Let us stand on our principles and our values, let us stand on our freedom and liberty, because if we die on our feet, at least we will never have to live on our knees, and what is more, let all the pathetic swine who want to hide away from the consequences of their freedom be the first to catch a bullet.



With freedom, there is a cause to live. Without it, there is only a good reason to die. It matters not one whit what might come to claim our lives, if protecting ourselves from the threat removes our freedom and liberty.